Posted 2 years ago on May 17, 2013, 6:45 a.m. EST by OWSadvocateAndActivist
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This debate titled ~ Occupy Tactics - Violence and Legitimacy in the Occupy Movement & Beyond ~ was held on September 12th, 2012.

It focuses on whether or not Occupy should start using violence as a means of protest to create the revolution we all desire. It's a very interesting debate featuring some of the more prominent people in the Occupy movement.

A bit long, but a must see for anyone who's following or participating in Occupy.

The government won't let the people get together to figure out a strategy, through crack down on occupy. We should reignite occupy, even if just in day hours in parks, to strategize aeffective plans and maintain pressure.
The web doesn't seem to be a good strategy designer either.
I was sure someone would design apps to unite the people in a strategies to get back the government from out of touch elites.

Why don't you comment on the current post instead of dishing out more red herrings. There's already a ton of posts for ALEC, mostly yours. This post is about an important Occupy debate between great scholars, You should watch the video. It's very interesting, and it's about Occupy, not US politics.

ALEC is certainly not a conspiracy theory. It is well documented by serious journalists. It is a very real group of people, very really documented. They are dangerous, as most right wingers are. The only way to defeat these types of groups is to destroy the system as a whole. If we keep the current representative republic, there will always be right wingers who which to push conservative agendas. There's no way around that. Even if you dismantle ALEC, another similar group will pop up later on. We need to destroy the stage, destroying the actors is only a temporary victory. What we need is anarchy, the very thing Occupy pushes. That's why I support Occupy.

Most likely not, but what else would make a difference? A democracy permits a plurality of ideas. And, in a representative republic, diverse parties are formed and may very well have view points that you do not agree with. I hate the Tea Party and ALEC, but they are allowed by law to do what they do. The system permits it. You could form a group that pushes for left wing reforms and left wing legislature, this would be perfectly legal.

This is why I believe going after particular groups is not really the job of OWS. This is the job of other political parties who play into the political arena. A left wing group can defeat ALEC by refuting their legislature inside the political system. OWS doesn't play there.

What OWS does and should continue to do is attack the system itself, not the players who come and go. Attacking players only helps short term.

The other reason I don't care too much for ALEC is because I'm not American. I support OWS, but I'm not trying to solve American political problems I have no control over. I'm interested in my own country.

As far as I'm concerned, US is beyond repair and having it fall would help the rest of the world. The future in in socialist type societies like Norway, Island, etc...

If OWS cannot destroy the US political system, which it problem never will be able to, the system will implode upon itself like all super powers who eventually fall. The downfall has already started, it's just a matter of time.

The problem is socialist countries are not as strong as China, and having China replace US as the super power is scary to say the least.

I believe things need to change drastically, and that's why Occupy was formed. Formed not by pro-democrats like yourself, but formed by anarcho-communists who planned on using civil disobedience and other protests tactics to attack the system from outside and create a revolution.

I have nothing against people like yourself who wish to play inside the system and push for democrat type reforms. I'm against the Tea Party and right-wingers just as much as anybody else here. But, that's not the job of Occupy. To properly play in politics and make changes to legislatures and have a real say, you need a political party. I suggest you form one, or join one which already exists and shares your views.

I'm here because I believe in the Occupy dream of anarcho-communism. Of dismantling representative republics and capitalism, and replacing them with anarcho-communism. Is it realistic? Perhaps not, but it's what Occupy is all about.

Do you support removing ALL impediments to unionization State and federal and indeed support legislation that encourages unionization?
Under those circumstances and ONLY under those circumstances, will I say yes.

There is far too much money and power arrayed against them, for anyone to honesty support just removing the money.

I don't hate unions. Never said I did. I simply think anarcho-syndicalism is a better option. Occupy's ideal is anarcho-syndicalism, but because this is difficult at the present time, they support the lesser alternative which is unions.

Anarcho-syndicalism gives much more power to workers than unions. In anarcho-syndicalism, the workers own the factories. They are their own bosses. With unions, workers still get paid less, still have bosses, and still have to do strikes, etc...

Constantly rehashing the definition of various and sundry forms of communism

Where have I rehashed definitions of communism? I posted quotes and definitions that weren't mine, but from Karl Marx. I provided links and evidence.

Unions are a bad idea as opposed to anarcho-syndicalism. I want the workers to own the factories. Unions just keep capitalism marching on and give the false impression to workers that they have control. They still don't.

I really dont see how you could possibly last more than a few nights at Occupy with all the wild and different ideas everyone had, the wide ranging radical views and the sometimes pure nonsense.

This poster is saying that the end goal should be worker owned, not worker representation.

I understand yoru frustration, because you see it as a "unicorn chasing" idea. But you have to understand that was what made Occupy so awesome, that "another world is possible" thinking.

That type of thinking is what hte national conversations are missing. The big ideas, the totally out of the box concepts. Most people in this country have no clue what community/anarchy ideas and concepts are, and thats a damn shame.

We dont need more people screaming that because the idea may not be terribly likely that the entire premise is bullshit and therefore it means that person is anti worker.

Everything needs to be questioned. EVERYTHING. The public has been duped for too long.

how exactly would the u.s. falling help the rest of the world? realize this truth. the chinese, the russians, the muslims, they all have designs for empire. as flawed as our system is and as perilous a situation as we are in we are still better off than these.

Indeed, the powers in the wings look even worse. We would hope a socialist country could take over, but that's a long shot to say the least.

One great thing about US is its ability to adapt its economy very quickly. If only it could switch from war funding to funding ecology and sustainable resources, perhaps we could quickly attain a post-scarcity society and finally reach Kardashev's type I civilization. In such a scenario, where an amazing amount of power would be created, everyone on the planet could have their needs met which would no doubt minimize war efforts, at least for material gain.

I'm an optimist, because being a pessimist essentially means already giving up the fight.

Projects like the International Space Station where russians, americans, and people from other countries work together give me hope. If countries could really come together with the goal of helping each other and reaching a world of non-scarcity (which I believe is possible), then this would be amazing.

The problem is, it's not so much about political powers anymore as it is about the powers of corporations. They want money. That's what they are made for. We consumers buy, so we can decide what makes money and what doesn't. It's essentially in our hands, but we really have to work together. If we all started buying solar panels, this would become the biggest industry on the planet and oil companies would quickly fold or change to solar panel manufacturers. It's up to us in the end.

I suggested a Bridge to the Ground, but the users here voted against it. The idea was to create a site so that those who cannot attend protests, actions, and affinity groups because of sickness or other issues could still interact with those on the ground. This way, things that are discussed here, could potentially become actions if those on the ground find them to be good ideas.

I don't really understand the purpose of this website at the moment. There's no communication between the people here and those who actually participate in real life OWS.

This creates two problems:

.1 Ideas discussed here end here. They are just words in the wind.
.2 People on this site have become disconnected with what is actually going on in Occupy. This is why this site has essentially become another website to discuss US politics, instead of strategies for Occupy which is a worldwide group that plays outside the theatre of politics.

I'm willing to bet most users here don't even watch the video posted here. They don't really care about Occupy. They are so disconnected from it. They just come here to vent, troll, or talk about US politics. Most are Obama water boys, not even close to being anarcho-communists or even knowing what that means.

It's quite sad when the hub website of a group or movement has little to do with that group or movement. A really bad sign.

My hope is as weather gets better and congress continues to deadlock, more people will get into the people's solutions to discussing and taking ownership of our problems.

We need to establish some definite goals, strategies and timelines and activities to meet the goals at national and state levels, and to identify resources, funds, and maximize these, such as small contributions, where they can best be applied,

And we need more bodies, able to meet up about once a week is most time most people would want to contribute,

And it should involve getting new people involved, and feeding young families food and hope

Wow, thanks for this! Just finished watching it. It was very interesting. Nice to see occupiers properly debating! I'm used to name calling and all kinds of insults on this site when two posters have differing views. It's nice to see occupiers which are intelligent and not thinking in lock step.

I heard both sides, but mostly sided with Hedges modified position, that varied tactics may be needed, but black block can have blow back, as a scapegoat of ruling elite, and to limit Ows message of breaking through to main street usa, and must be cognizant of elderly and children who can't evade tear gas.

I tend to agree. I think it's all or nothing. If OWS is to be a peaceful type of protest, then having black bloc break a few windows here and there does not help, it hurts us.

But, as you know, sometimes revolutions need to use violence to protest effectively. I don't think OWS is anywhere there. Not even close. We wouldn't have enough support.

Mandela used violence by blowing up banks and the like and it worked well for him and his group, although he did go to jail, change eventually came. However, he had a lot of support.

Note: By violence I include property destruction. Mandela's group did not kill people, they blew up buildings but always did so when nobody was inside.

I don't think shedding blood ever helps. Saying "never" is a big word, so perhaps I should say it might only help in a tiny fraction of cases, perhaps like against Hitler.

The most important thing I believe is to be thoroughly transparent. I know this is difficult since it tells our adversaries our plans, but nonetheless, it's important for a few reasons. If a protest is advertised as being peaceful and people bring their children and elderly, then it's a real danger if the black bloc shows up to start rumbling.